ParsonsProject_Capstone

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO COLORADO SPRINGS
Genetic Enhancement:
Determining Ethical and Moral Boundaries
Laura Parsons
4/25/2016

Determining Symbolic Boundaries
Abstract
While currently hypothetical, previous philosophical discussion debates whether genetic
enhancement would diminish humans innate characteristics or positively enhance the human
life course. To evaluate how genetic enhancements would be perceived, twelve interviews were
conducted to understand how individuals draw symbolic boundaries when evaluating genetic en-
hancement. I assert that individuals experience a paradox between core values of freedom and
meritocracy. Results indicate that symbolic boundaries were drawn in accordance with values
reflecting hard work, instrumentality, determination, and inevitability. By placing possible genet-
ic procedures into categories of legit and illegitimate sources of advantage, interviewees evaluat-
ed options as acceptable or unacceptable. Furthermore, when individuals interpreted genetic
modification as beneficial to the child, it was deemed acceptable and when genetic modification
was interpreted as harmful, it was categorized as unacceptable. If access to genetic modification
is demanded in the future we must address at what point person freedom to pursue and create
genetic technologies must be restricted.

Introduction
Genetic enhancement, also known as genetic modification or genetic engineering when
applied to humans, refers to the application of genetic technology to modify children to possess
certain desirable traits before conception. While several nations have policies that consider sex
selection to be a human rights violation, the United States is one of only two developed countries
which legally allows a parent to select the sex of their child for non-medical reasons (Darnovsky,
2009). The potential for “designer babies” that could be genetically engineered for preferred ap-
pearance, ability, behavior, and intelligence (Simmons, 2008 p. 175) has resulted in an ethical
argument between philosophers and medical professionals. As genetic testing on embryos to se-
lect preferred traits is currently not permitted, ethical evaluations are hypothetical but urgent giv-
en the existing technological potential.
It is important to bring this topic to the public’s attention before technological advance-
ments make genetic modification a reality and option for parents. Only by carefully analyzing
how ethical boundaries are drawn will we be able to determine how individuals react when in-
creasing technology contradicts their established value systems. This study focuses on how indi-
viduals would draw symbolic boundaries to determine acceptability of genetic enhancement if it
was currently available. Symbolic boundaries are ethically determined lines which individuals
use to distinguish ideas into preconceived categories in accordance with how an idea challenges
or reaffirms established values. As the progression of genetic enhancement into society is un-
known, no single set of values can determine how an individual will judge genetic enhancement.
When core values are in contradiction, individual’s are forced to ethically negotiate their decision
in order to determine levels of acceptance or disapproval.

Literature Review
Previous literature advocates advocate both for and against the potential application of
genetic modification before conception. These philosophical arguments generalize positive or
negative effects of genetic enhancement on humanity as a whole, but do not address the ethical
boundaries that individuals draw when technological advances contract their core values. My
research attempts to identify what ethical and moral boundaries individuals draw upon when de-
termining an ethical threshold for genetic enhancement. As minimal research has been conducted
focusing on ethical boundary work for genetic enhancement, the following analyzed literature
focuses on within the biomedical and philosophical debates.
Argument for genetic enhancement
Unlocking Human Potential
Genetic Enhancement can be defined as any genetic advancement of “our capabilities be-
yond the species-typical level or statistically- normal range of functioning for an
individual” (Allhoff & Lin, 2008, p. 254). In the absence of genetic enhancement, the human
form is limited to a certain range of abilities. Considering the analogy that humanity has been
working on one canvass, genetic enhancement allows for the potential to work on an entirely
new canvass with different possibilities (Buchanan, 2009, p. 142). Free from limited potential,
humanity could learn more quickly and have superior immune systems that allow societies to
reach levels unattainable to previous generations (Bostrom, 2003, p. 499).
Currently children are born with the abilities and potential for intelligence allotted to
them by a “natural lottery.” Genetic enhancement erases the “natural lottery” that disadvantages
those born with cognitive and physical disabilities (Crone & Heilinger, 2014, p.16). Children

would then be spared excessive stress or discomfort from bullying that result in low self-confi-
dence (Borenstein, 2009, p. 519). Genetic enhancement presents the opportunity to allow humans
to reach their full potential. Behavioral genes such as alcoholism, aggression, and schizophrenia
all hinder one’s ability to adhere to social norms (Neitzke, 2012, p. 335). Correcting these genes
would give individuals a better chance of success both socially and professionally (Savulescu,
2001, p. 424). As genetic enhancement holds the potential to eliminate the “natural lottery,” in-
dividuals would possess more self-determination by the removal of physical and cognitive barri-
ers to success (Crone &Heilinger, 2014, p.15).
Improved Quality of Life
Human nature as it currently exists restricts some forms of sociability that would improve
the quality of life for many people (Buchanan, 2009, p. 144). The term “procreative beneficence”
argues that couples have a moral obligation to select healthy genes for their children, therefore
providing the best quality of life possible for the child (Savulescu, 2001, p. 413). Enhancement
would free individuals with genetic traits affecting their ability to participate in society to be-
come active members (Crone & Heilinger, 2014, p.17).
Additionally, pharmaceutical drugs that alter behavior and moods, such as ADD and de-
pression, are available with a prescription. Genetic modification would simply address these is-
sues before birth (Allhoff, 2008, p. 264). Reducing detrimental behaviors such as aggressiveness
has the potential to increase humanity’s ability to cooperate successfully on a global level and
decrease the potential for malevolent behaviors (Gyngell, 2012, p. 506). Simply because we have
only been able to work with natural human biology does not necessarily mean that we should

not venture into creating more empathetic humans with less aggression (Buchanan, 2009, p.
145).
Improved Human Form
A significant portion of respondents surveyed from developed and developing countries
support the selective termination for conditions ranging from two missing fingers to obesity and
limited musical talent (Henn, 2000, p.445). While many critics argue that selective termination of
genes that causes disability indicates a lesser value of individuals with disabilities, one could eas-
ily argue that preventing disability in a future child is no different from avoiding disabilities of
that child later in life through vaccinations (Malek, 2010, p. 221). Parents pursuing genetic en-
hancement to prevent having children with disabilities cause no intrinsic harm to the disabled
community (Murphy, 2010, p. 107).
Genetic enhancement would allow for individuals to be free from preconditions that hin-
der their ability to be successful in their lives (Crone & Heilinger, 2014, p.18). Genes less desir-
able for success could be deselected for, such as tendencies towards obesity, schizophrenia, alco-
holism, and even aggression (Collins et al., 1998, p. 114). On a cognitive level, humans would be
freer to make rational choices by increased mental capacities (Crone & Heilinger, 2014, p.20).
After all, humans have always adapted to their environment and genetic enhancement would just
be another adaptation.
Arguments against genetic enhancement
Loss of human characteristics
The result of long years of training and practice in order to master specialized tasks cre-
ates a sense of freedom and accomplishment. If complex tasks were easily mastered, it is argued

that individual development and self-discipline would become impossible for humans (Crone &
Heilinger, 2014, p.17). This genetic “short cut” would advance humanity on an intellectual level,
but reduce our individual personalities based around personal struggle and success (Crone &
Heilinger, 2014, p.17). Likewise, a reduction in personal struggle may take away human empa-
thy (Buchanan, 2009, p. 147) resulting in less care and tolerance for special-needs children
(Murphy, 2010, p. 107).
Human appreciation for beauty may also suffer as a result of human genetic enhancement
(Parens, 1995, p.145). Often what makes something beautiful is its rarity and fragility, knowing
that the beauty cannot last forever. Much like the beauty of a blossoming flower, it’s beauty rests
in the pleasure of its rarity, the anxiety over its short span, and the memory of it after it’s passing
(Parens, 1995, p. 147). One argument contends that what makes human life beautiful is the fact
that it is not everlasting. Perhaps if humans did not have the normal body breakdown and even-
tually pass away, their existence would hold less meaning and beauty (Buchanan, 2009, p. 144;
Parens, 1995, p. 147).
Exaggerated Prenatal Inequality
The “natural lottery” awards to each person traits that will advantage and disadvantage
him or her throughout their lifecycle (Parens, 1995, p.144). It is not difficult to imagine the in-
creased social inequality that genetic enhancement could create. Supporters of genetic enhance-
ment argue that the “natural lottery” advantages some individuals over others, and there can be
little doubt that only a select few would be able to afford to buy superior traits for their children
(Loi & Kollar, 2015, p. 37; Borenstein, 2009, p. 519). Assuming the demand for genetic en-
hancement would operate under a free-market system where access is directly linked to ability to

pay, high income families could purchase genetic superiority (Etieyibo, 2012 p. 298). Low in-
come families unable to purchase enhanced genes for their children would experience an exag-
gerated inequality (Allhoff & Lin, 2008, p. 259; Loi & Kollar, 2015, p.40). With no “natural lot-
tery” instead of a paradise free from genetic disadvantages resulting, the gap between wealthy
children and poorer children will increase dramatically (Parens, 1995, p. 149).
Likewise, it is not a far stretch to progress from gene-therapy that replaces defective
genes with healthy genes, to replacing healthy genes with “superior” genes (Buchanan, 2009, p.
147). As history has clearly shown with regard to eugenics, “superior” genes always reflect the
group in control. Following this potential, selecting for so-called “superior” genes could result in
the slow elimination of disadvantaged groups (Parens, 1995, p. 148).
Loss of Choice
Even following the assumption that genetic enhancement resulted in positive outcomes
for potential offspring; parents would slowly lose their ability to refuse genetic enhancement for
their child (Crone & Heilinger, 2014, p.15) and receive a societal backlash for failing to prevent
their child’s disability (Murphy, p. 107). The ability to select for lighter skin tones or blond hair,
that the media continues to promote as the epitome of beauty, may pressure parents to design
their child to look a certain way (Parens, 1995, p. 145). A “keeping up” culture created by the
normalization of genetic enhancement would force parents to participate in genetic enhancement
for their children to simply keep pace with the new human standards (Hogle, 2005, p. 700). The
resulting consequence for parents who refuse to genetically enhance their child may be exagger-
ated disadvantage in regard to the child’s peers (Crone & Heilinger, 2014, p.16).

Moreover, potential offspring lose the freedom to be the sole author of their life, having
being designed with a specific purpose or image (Tonkens, 2011, p.276). There is worry that
parental ability to select their child’s genetic traits would hinder one’s potential for self-determi-
nation and an open future (Neitzke, 2012, p. 336). Likewise, genetically enhanced individual
may questions his or her fundamental characteristics resulting in a weak sense of self (Specker,
2014, p. 10).
From a bioethical standpoint, the potential child’s freedom would be violated by genetic
enhancement. Currently, medical consent is needed from the individual unless the procedure in-
volves a young child who cannot make informed consent (Crone & Heilinger, 2014, p.17). As
these medical procedures are only applied when health is a necessity, selecting “superior” genes
resulting from no medical necessity may violate the child’s right of consent (Tonkens, 2011, p.
280).
Similar ethical dilemmas occurred when participants sought to explain their reasoning
behind agreeing or disagreeing with several genetic procedures. Values cited reflected existing
literature that noted improved quality of life, exaggerated inequality, and loss of choice. This
study however goes beyond a third party critique of the consequences of genetic enhancement
and personalizes the ethical debate for each participant. By addressing scenarios where intervie-
wees must choose whether to genetically modify their children, symbolic boundaries are estab-
lished based on preconceived values.

Methodology
Previous literature regarding human genetic enhancement sought to determine its advan-
tages and disadvantages on a philosophical level. Little research has been conducted to discover
how the general population would establish boundaries of permissiveness regarding genetic en-
hancement. In order to fill gaps in the literature, this study interviewed college students to deter-
mine where an ethical threshold would be drawn regarding the permissiveness of genetic en-
hancement on future off-spring. Interviews were selected based on age and university major.
Candidates needed to be between the ages of 18-24, enrolled full time, and without any children.
The specific age range was selected since genetic enhancement may be a possibility if partici-
pants decide to have children. Additionally, participants were selected from departments within
the College of Letters of Arts and Sciences to maintain as much consistency as possible. The
racial diversity of interviewees reflected the demographic makeup of the university consisting of
eight white students and four minority students. Six males and six females were selected from
the University of Colorado, and the sample was one of convenience as all participants were ac-
quaintances of the interviewer.
This study centers on the methodological stages of Grounded Theory, in which symbolic
categories were established by coding for boundary framework. Interview questions were based
on the 1993 report “Cultural Beliefs About Rape,” in which interviewees address third party sce-
narios (Hicks et al., 1993, p. 624). The questions for this report contained scenarios in which the
fictional individuals are questioning the use of genetic enhancement on their future children.
Scenarios ranged from minor to extensive forms of genetic enhancement regarding weight, ap-
pearance, physical ability, intelligence, and genetic deficiencies. The gradual increase of the

severity was based on the 1999 article “Rape by Acquiescence,” which focused on differing
types of marital rape (Basile, 1999, p. 1040). Each scenario concluded by asking interviewees to
either encourage or discourage the fictional character from pursuing genetic enhancement for
their future children. Follow-up and probing questions were applied as suggested by Kvale for
qualitative interviewing, to facilitate conversation regarding factors influencing opinions on the
particular scenario (Kvale, 1996, 133). Third party scenarios were selected to establish a non-
judgmental interview environment.
Interviews were conducted in semi-private locations of the interviewee’s choosing to en-
sure comfort. Interviewees were shown a short clip introducing them to the topic of genetic en-
hancement and then asked to answer a series of scenario question. These scenarios first asked
participants to respond to a third party scenario and then asked to response to a personalized ver-
sion in which they had to choose or dismiss a genetic modification procedure. Interviews were
recorded and later transcribed in order to determine occurring themes; however, no names were
recorded. Categories were determined after transcribing the first three interviews, in each ques-
tion for every participant was coded for an emphasized value. Twelve interviews were conduct-
ed in total ranging from 22 minutes to 47 minutes.
Results
Participants reflected numerous values within their interviews. When asked if intervie-
wees would genetically modify their child for any appearance trait such as hair color, eye color,
or skin color, the majority of applicants noted a parental responsibility to love the child regard-
less of appearance while noting the lack of applicable purpose from one appearance. Participants

who supported modifying appearance also noted a lack of applicable purpose but interpreted
these forms of modifications as permissible as it did not unfairly advantage the child over anoth-
er. Both supporters and opponents to genetic enhancement for appearance placed importance on
understanding the parental motives behind their decision. While many noted that parents may be
motivated by selfish preference, supporters stated that if parental motives were selfless then their
decision was permissible. Additionally, both groups noted the availability of natural options in
order to support their opinion. Therefore, participants were able to support changing eye color as
no alternative options where available, and opposing changing hair color as the option to dye
one’s hair was a valid alternative.
When asked whether participants found genetic modification for weight lose to be ac-
ceptable, the connection between excess weight and obesity related illnesses was the determining
factor. Valuing the health of the child allowed participants to find genetic modification to prevent
excess weight gain to be acceptable in order to avoid negative health consequences. When excess
weight gain was not linked to health consequences, participants emphasized the availability of
natural options to overcome weight issues in a healthy manner. Many also noted a “no cheating”
approach that focuses on teaching the child a healthy lifestyle and overcoming challenges that
foster determination and self-control.
In regards to genetic modification for increased athletic ability or intelligence, almost all
participants referred to these enhancements as a form of cheating. Placing value on the impor-
tance of hard work, enhancing for athletic ability was described as a way to easily “hand” talent
to undeserving individuals as well as potentially leading to a society where only those who could
afford athletic genes would be capable of competing. Emphasis was placed on allowing the child

to pick what sports or extracurricular actives they would participate in and valued the child’s
agency over the parental right to pursue enhancement. This focus reflected the value of discover-
ing each’s child’s individual talent instead of “pushing” the child into one area of focus.
While addressing enhancement of both athletic ability and intelligence, a majority of par-
ticipants noted that, assuming genetic procedures were highly expensive, only the elite would be
able to purchase “superior” traits for their children and an exaggerated inequality would result.
Only one participant saw increasing intelligence as a step forward by society, as increased intel-
ligence would allow humans to be kinder and progress advancements forward. The majority pre-
ferred to pursue natural options available such as homeschooling, tutoring, or placing the child in
private school over enhancing intelligence as natural alternatives were perceived to foster hard
work and reemphasized the importance of “earning” what one achieves. Four participants stated
that intelligence was less valuable than moral character, well-roundedness, and personality and
therefore should not be valued as highly.
Participants were mostly unified when addressing genetic modification for selecting sex.
Those who did not support selecting for the sex of their child noted that the choice would inher-
ently change the destiny of the child. Eleven out of twelve participants stated that at least for a
couple’s first child, the sex should not be selected. In this case, selecting the sex of one’s first
child was interpreted as sexist. These participants stated that after having a child of one sex, it
was then acceptable to select for the opposite sex. Two male participants conditionally supported
selecting sex if the couple had children without genetic interference, hence pursuing natural op-
tions first before opting for genetic enhancement.

Choosing to select out for genetic disorders resulted in value conflicting for most partici-
pants. Although all participants stated equally valuing human life, ten determined both mental
and physical disabilities to cause unfair disadvantages. These ten individuals stated that remov-
ing disorders would enhance the overall quality of life for the child and allow them to reach their
highest potential. Two of the ten participants who found genetic disorders to be disadvantages
were unsure whether to select out for mental disabilities, stating that to removing these genes
would innately change the child and result in further discrimination against the mentally disabled
community. Only two participants firmly stated refusing to select out for both physical and men-
tal disorders given the knowledge that their child would inherit a disorder, citing a “nature knows
best” approach that placed God’s plan above their own.
Analysis
Drawing on a neo-Durkheimian perspective, people make sense of their social world by
creating symbolic categories based on their values and beliefs. The overwhelming majority of
participants interviewed shared collective beliefs valuing instrumentality, hard work, effort, and
inevitability. By placing variations of possible genetic enhancements into legitimate and illegiti-
mate sources of advantage interviewees were able to evaluate options as permissible or unac-
ceptable. These values created a binary distinction between what participants determined to be
legitimate advantage verses legitimate advantage. Likewise, while all individuals addressed ge-
netic modification as harmful or beneficial, how these terms were defined were unique to the in-
dividual.

Participants first distinguished between necessary and unnecessary genetic modifications
based on a sense of instrumentality. Modifications that increase the quality of life for an individ-
ual was considered useful while those that did little or nothing to improve one’s life quality were
considered unnecessary. For example, modifications that altered a child’s appearance were gen-
erally considered harmful and therefore unnecessary to modify. For several individuals, under-
standing the motives behind modifying a child’s appearance influenced their decision. Although
almost all interviewees noted the unimportance of hair and eye color, if parental motives for
modification were considered to be unselfish (such as selecting for appearance similar to a loved
one), then participants found their decision to be permissible. In contrast if parental motives were
considered selfish, such as an appearance preference, then the modification was considered un-
acceptable. It is important to note that participants frequently found it acceptable for another per-
son to modify their child but found the decision not permissible when asked if they would pursue
the same modification themselves. This seems to reflect a belief in personal freedom of choice
and an increasing societal norm of “no judgement.”
Likewise, participants continued to draw on a desire to value all individuals equally when
asked if they found changing a child’s skin color to be permissible. All white participants stated
that the ability to choose skin color would only exacerbate the issue of racial inequality and rein-
force the notion that white skin is superior. White participants all acknowledged at least some
form of racial privilege and attempted to distance themselves from notions of white supremacy.
Interestingly, three of the four minorities interviewed also stated that they would not change their
child’s skin color expressing that society determined what was culturally ideal but did not deter-
mine one’s true value.

Genetic procedures were seen as permissible if they did not give the child an unfair ad-
vantage over others and served an instrumental purpose. These genetic modifications in other
words could not negate an individual’s need for hard work to achieve success. However, when
modifications removed a “disadvantage” from an individual, it was generally considered fair
since it allowed the child to compete with peers. For example, removing a physical or mental ge-
netic disorder was considered legitimate because it placed the child at a similar ability level to
peers. This was generally regarded as removing a barrier of disadvantage to the child and allow-
ing him or her to flourish uninhibited. Individuals who agreed with removing genetic disorders
interpreted the act as beneficial to achieve one’s life goals. In contrast, those who disagreed with
removing genetic disorders believed doing so was harmful as it reduced the child down to his or
her genetic disorder. While ten out of twelve interviewees stated that they would select genes that
would eliminate the possibility of their child inheriting a mental or physical disorder, all partici-
pants expressed guilt with their decision. Participants’ guilt can be attributed to conflicting values
that emphasize the equal value of all individuals and a societal desire to improve one quality of
life. Interviewees compromised their conflicting values by stating that people with mental and
physical disabilities should be valued as equal members of society, however they desired to im-
prove their child’s quality of life if given the opportunity.
In contrast to removing a physical disability, choosing to genetically enhance a child’s
athletic ability was regarded as “cheating” by participants. Citing the value of hard work, inter-
viewees found this option to provide an illegitimate advantage as it negated the need for an indi-
vidual to overcome challenges to achieve success. Therefore, while athletic enhancement served

an instrumental purpose, participants believed it would provide an unfair and unearned advan-
tage over competition.
When interviewees were asked whether they found genetic modification for higher intel-
ligence to be permissible, eleven out of twelve participants opposed enhancing intelligence.
While noting that higher intelligence serves an instrumental purpose in one’s daily life and life
outcome, participants believed that doing so would eliminate a child’s need to work hard in
school. Similar to the increased inequality that would occur if wealthy parents could purchase
athletic genes for their children, participants found that the ability to increase a child’s intelli-
gence would result in the same increased inequality. This particular genetic modification would
result in the child’s success being “unearned.”
Participants categorized genetic enhancements into two categories: legitimate and illegit-
imate advantage. Traditional class advantage entails material resources or opportunities given to
children as a result of their socioeconomic status. Several interviewees suggested that parent’s
homeschool their child, hire a tutor, or place the child in a private school to naturally increase
their IQ level. Ironically these traditional class advantages were regarded as legitimate forms of
advantage although access to such options would be provided to a child through his or her own
“unearned” privilege. Seemingly the distinction between legitimate advantage (private educa-
tion) and illegitimate advantage (technological intervention) focused on the necessary require-
ment to put in effort for success. Although a child in private education certainly has an unearned
advantage over peers in a low-funded public school, both children will need discipline and effort.
This unearned class advantage is legitimized as the child “earns” advantage through traditional
class means.

The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate advantage was further reinforced
through participants’ responses to genetically modifying against predisposed weight gain or obe-
sity. Interviewees sorted genetically modifying for weight gain into two distinct categories: for
health reasons and for appearance. Participants found it acceptable for parents to pursue this
form of genetic modification if they had reason to believe that excess weight gain would lead to
diabetes or heart complications. If parental motives reflected a desire for their children to be
thinner for appearance or to avoid negative social repercussions such as bullying, participants
indicated that a lifestyle change was preferred. Drawing on social norms that value dedication
and determination, lifestyle changes such as healthy eating and exercise are symbolically placed
into legitimate forms of success whereas use of technology to eliminate a predisposition to
weight gain is placed into illegitimate forms of success. Participants’ responses are consistent
with the American belief in the individual’s power to triumph through struggle. Likewise, legiti-
mate success is again characterized through traditional class advantage, such as access to healthy
food, gym access, and time availability to exercise.
Participants struggled to distinguish genetic modification procedures into the symbolical-
ly created categories of predestined inevitability and improved quality of life. In this study in-
evitability refers to the normative belief in a higher power that has a set plan for all individuals.
Such values were coded as “nature knows best” and refer to an indication that God, nature, the
universe, or karma determined the child’s life purpose and therefore should not be altered. It is
important to note that hesitation for one to interfere with destiny was not only noted by partici-
pants who referenced God. Interviewees often struggled to answer situational genetic modifica-

tion questions when they determined the modification to have an instrumental value that would
improve the child’s quality of life but may somehow alter the child’s “destiny.”
Additionally, three participants stated that only the elite would be able to purchase such
genes for their children, resulting in the elimination of superior athletes rising from poverty. The
existing social order embodied by the “American Dream” is thereby threatened by our increas-
ing scientific technology. The contradiction of freedom of choice and desire for a meritocracy
forced participants to compromise their existing value systems. By favoring traditional class ad-
vantage, participants interpreted the situation as allowing parental freedom to give the child ad-
vantage. Favoring traditional class advantage over genetic enhancement, participants believed
that lower-income individuals would have an opportunity to succeed.
Determining how individuals create symbolic boundaries is crucial to understanding po-
tential societal change. When symbolic boundaries reflect widespread beliefs, values, and norms,
social boundaries are formed that establish acceptable and unacceptable behaviors within society.
Participants formed symbolic boundaries that reflected an emphasized value on instrumentality,
hard work, effort, and inevitability. It can be assumed that unless a shift in cultural values occur,
based on the values displayed in this study, individuals would be hesitant to pursue any genetic
modification that would result in a significant advantage over others. Participants instead favor
traditional class advantage which still requires effort and hard work over technological advances
leading to success.

Conclusion
Participants found genetic modifications permissible or unacceptable depending on how
those procedures either supported or challenged their values. Forced to negotiate ethical dilem-
mas participants experienced contradicting core values of freedom and success through hard
work or meritocracy. The American culture places value on individual freedom of choice, how-
ever freedom to pursue genetic technology will erode our fundamental desire for meritocracy. In
order to determine ethical values when values were in contradiction, interviewees compromised
existing values to rationalize their decision. In this way traditional class advantage (attending
private school) was interpreted as permitting parental freedom to advantage a child and a system
of meritocracy allowing for social class mobility could still exist.
Similar patterns emerge when interviewees created symbolic boundaries reflecting legit-
imate and illegitimate advantage. Traditional class advantage such as increasing intelligence by
attending private school was interpreted as beneficial, whereas illegitimate advantage through the
use of technology was interpreted as harmful as it eliminated the need for hard work. Likewise,
the symbolic categorization of benefit and harm determined how interviewees established an eth-
ical boundary for genetic modification against weight gain. When participants regarded the en-
hancement as removing the need for a healthy lifestyle and well-balanced diet it was considered
harmful. In contrast when viewed as a preventative measure against diabetes or other health re-
lated issues, the modification was seen as beneficial to a child.
Categorizing benefit and harm additionally became an important distinction when draw-
ing ethical boundaries. When genetic modification was interpreted as beneficial to the child it

was deemed acceptable. In contrast, when genetic modification was interpreted as harmful it was
categorized as unacceptable. While participants operated under the same assumption that benefi-
cial modifications were acceptable and harmful modifications were unacceptable, how the terms
were interpreted differed on an individual basis. The different categorization of benefit and harm
can clearly be seen in the case of modifying for genetic disorders. While the majority of partici-
pants interpreted genetic modification to remove a disorder as beneficial because it improved
one’s quality of life, participants who believed that removing the disorder deviated from nature’s
plan interpreted the modification as harmful.
Individuals are forced to negotiate conflicting values in everyday life. Participants re-
sponses indicate that technology, science, and consumer culture challenge a normative sense of
legitimate advantage. While participants indicated a disapproval for genetic enhancements unre-
lated to health or instrumental value, this does not necessarily indicate that genetic enhancement
will not be pursued. Such can be seen in the cosmetic industry where although a cultural disdain
of cosmetic surgery as superficial exists , our values of freedom and liberty explain the cosmetic
industry’s popularity. If or when a demand for genetic modification of offspring is demanded,
joint interpretation of symbolic and ethical boundaries will need to be interpreted by sociologists
as well as the medical community. The collaborative efforts of these areas of thought must be
combined when establishing policies regarding availability of genetic modification for prospec-
tive parents. It can be assumed that the decision of policy makers will be determined by the in-
terpretation of benefit and harm within established symbolic boundaries.
Additional research must be conducted to address the contradiction of core values in
everyday life and how individuals navigate contradicting values when making ethical decisions.

Research should focus on establishing the symbolic boundaries of a widespread region. As this
study was conducted by interviewing students within the College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences at
the University of Colorado Colorado Springs, the potential sample size was fairly small and con-
tained students from primarily middle socioeconomic backgrounds. Additional studies would be
encouraged to engage with students from more affluent backgrounds in prestigious universities.
As many of this studies interviewee’s noted the potential for increased inequality and placed less
emphasis on intellectual intelligence as a means to success, students in a more competitive envi-
ronment with financial access to genetic enhancement may draw differing symbolic boundaries.

Citations
Allhoff, F. & Lin, P. “Untangling the Debate: The Ethics of Human Enhancement.” Nanoethics 2,
(2008): 251-264.
Borenstein, Jason. “The Wisdom of Caution: Genetic Enhancement and Future Children.” Scien-
tific Engineering Ethics 15, (2009): 517-530.
Bostrom, Nick. “Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective.” The Journal of
Value Inquiry 37, (2003): 493-506.
Collins, E., Connors, G., Milner, K., Petty, E. “Attitudes of Young Adults to Prenatal Screening
and Genetic Correction for Human Attributes and Psychiatric Conditions.” American
Journal of Medical Genetics 76, no.2 (1998): 111-119.
Crone, K., & Heilinger, J. “Human Freedom and Enhancement.” Medical Health Care and Phi-
losophy 17, (2014): 13–21.
Darnovsky, Marcy. “Countries with laws or policies on sex selection.” Center for Genetics and
Society. (2009): 1-7.
Etieyibo, Edwin. “Genetic Enhancement, Social Justice, and Welfare-Oriented Patterns of Distri-
bution.” Bioethics 26, no. 6 (2012): 296-304.
Garcia, T. & Sandler, R. “Enhancing Justice?” Nanoethics 2, (2008): 277–287.
Gyngell, Chris. “Enhancing the Species: Genetic Engineering Technologies and Human 
Persistence.” Philosophy Technology 25, (2012): 495-512.
Hays, Sharon. “Structure and Agency and the Sticky Problem of Culture.” Sociological Theory
12, no.1 (1994): 57-72.
Henn, Wolfram. “Consumerism in Prenatal Diagnosis: A Challenge for Ethical Guidelines.”
Journal of Medical Ethics 26, (2000): 444–446.
Hogle, Linda. “Enhancement Technologies and the Body.” Annual Review of Anthropology 34,
(2005): 695-716.
Kourany, Janet. “Human Enhancement: Making the Debate More Productive.” Erkenntnis 79,
no.5 (2014): 981-998.
Loi, M., & Kollar. “Prenatal Equality of Opportunity.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 32, no.1
(2015): 35-49.

Malek, Janet. “Deciding against disability: does the use of reproductive genetic technologies ex-
press disvalue for people with disabilities?” Journal of Medical Ethics 36, no.4 (2010):
217-221.
Murphy, Timothy. “When choosing the traits of children is hurtful to others.” Journal of Medical
Ethics 37, (2010): 105-108).
Neitzke, Alex. “On the Genetic Modification of Psychology, Personality, and Behavior” Kennedy
Institute of Ethic Journal 22, no. 4 (2012): 307-343.
Parens, Erik. “The Goodness of Fragility: On the Prospect of Genetic Technologies Aimed at the
Enhancement of Human Capacities.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5, no.2 (1995):
141-153.
Tonkens, Ryan. “Parental Wisdom, Empirical Blindness, and Normative Evaluation of Prenatal
Genetic Enhancement.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36, (2011): 274–295.
Savulescu, Julian. “Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children.”
Bioethics 15, no. 5 (2001): 413-426.
Simmons, D. (2008) Genetic inequality: Human genetic engineering. Nature Education 1(1):173
Specker, Jona, et al. “The ethical desirability of moral bioenhancement: a review of reasons.”
BMC Medical Ethics 15, no. 67 (2014): 1-17.

ParsonsProject_Capstone

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to ParsonsProject_Capstone

ParsonsProject_Capstone